Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-jswmv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T22:28:12.636Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What is the Relation Between Comparative Historical Analysis and ‘Ordinary’ Case Studies?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Ingo Rohlfing
Ingo Rohlfing*
Affiliation:
Cologne Graduate School in Management, Economics and Social Sciences (CGS), Faculty of Management, Economics and Social Sciences, University of Cologne, Germany
*
E-mail: rohlfing@wiso.uni-koeln.de
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In recent years, Comparative Historical Analysis (CHA) has been developed as a methodological apparatus that is distinct from quantitative research in many respects. While this is correct, it is less apparent to what extent CHA is different from and adds something to the tools and techniques known from ordinary case study research (i.e., not tied to Historical Institutionalism). As a researcher who is attached to CHA, Peter Hall is invited to elaborate on this approach.

Keywords

comparative historical analysiscase study researchcomparative methodshistorical institutionalismprocess tracing

Information

Type
Symposium
Information
European Political Science , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , March 2013, pp. 16 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 European Consortium for Political Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bennett, A. and Elman, C. (2006) ‘Qualitative research: recent developments in case study methods’, Annual Review of Political Science 9: 455–476.10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.082103.104918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capoccia, G.C. and Kelemen, D.R. (2007) ‘The study of critical junctures: theory, narrative, and counterfactuals in historical institutionalism’, World Politics 59(3): 341–369.10.1017/S0043887100020852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, P.A. (2003) ‘Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Comparative Research’, in Mahoney, J. and Rueschemeyer, D. (eds.) Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 373–404.10.1017/CBO9780511803963.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, J. (2003) ‘Strategies of Causal Assessment in Comparative Historical Analysis’, in Mahoney, J. and Rueschemeyer, D. (eds.) Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 337–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, J. (2004) ‘Comparative-historical methodology’, Annual Review of Sociology 30: 81–101.10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, J. and Rueschemeyer, D. (eds.) (2003) ‘Comparative Historical Analysis: achievement and agendas’, in Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–38.10.1017/CBO9780511803963.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, J. and Terrie, P.L. (2008) ‘Comparative-Historical Analysis in Contemporary Political Science’, in Box-Steffensmeier, J.M., Brady, H.E. and Collier, D. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 737–755.Google Scholar
Mahoney, J. and Villegas, C.M. (2007) ‘Historical Enquiry and Comparative Politics’, in Boix, C. and Stokes, S.C. (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 73–89.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (2004) Politics in Time, Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400841080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skocpol, T. (2003) ‘Doubly Engaged Social Science’, in Mahoney, J. and Rueschemeyer, D. (eds.) Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 407–428.10.1017/CBO9780511803963.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar